Yes, parking lots are hard in the aspects you mention but you are completely ignoring the fact that Smart Summon only goes 2-3 MPH. There is a LOT more that happens when you are moving 60+ MPH compared to 2-3 MPH. There is a lot more to process and, in the January 2018 firetruck crash, there was a vehicle ahead of the person that suddenly changed lanes. That is a much more significant change at highway speeds than a non-moving garage. And the fact that it was a 2014 Model S is significant. Based on the year of the vehicle the hardware was HW1.0, which only included a single camera, and we can only assume HW1.0 did not match or exceed the abilities of the HW2.0. The Model 3, which the original post is about, has HW2.5 or HW3.0, depending on date of manufacture. Not hitting a non-moving garage is also not a function of the cameras. There are 360 degree ultrasonic sensors which, in my experience, are overly cautious. *Those* would have stopped the car from hitting the garage. Plus, again, a thinking person would realize this, the damage doesn't match the claim. There is little damage to the portion of the car that extends out the most and much more damage as it gets higher up and further towards the center of the car. Hitting a garage wall would damage the portion that extends out the most and might cause some damage as a panel buckles. Someone is just trying to get noticed and you've clearly fallen for it.

Except that was a 2014 model with old hardware and was traveling at highway speeds. You're basically comparing a 1980's PC to a 2019 PC. New software on very old hardware with fewer abilities.

A thinking person would realize Smart Summon wasn't the cause of this. Yes, Smart Summon is new and in beta, but the functionality is far from new. Smart Summon relies on many other Tesla features, such as the cameras, the radar, and the 360 degree ultrasonic sensors. All of these features have been in use for years and have successfully avoided an unknown number of incidents. All Smart Summon does is utilize these features to navigate a parking lot or a driveway. My guess is that this guy put his car in drive instead of reverse and doesn't want to take the blame.

This is extremely common. A lot of newer firewalls have it built in and it is basically just a checkbox and configuring a CA. Palo Alto prevents issues with banking by allowing a company to perform SSL decryption on all traffic, but exclude decryption on certain categories of sites. Therefore, you can perform decryption, but not decrypt banking sites. And, btw, even those "HTTPS" VPNs will often use IPSEC after the initial authentication. SSL is usually a fallback.

At no point in the article is it stated that these tweets were made while the trial was in progress. Do jurors only drink coffee while listening to testimony? They are given breaks and can drink coffee when they aren't in court. While I agree that jury duty is just that, your duty, I don't believe these instances should fall under anything other than being stupid.

Sounds like a good example where the Fully Informed Jury Association website should have been reviewed. From their site fija.org:

"The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict."

You could simply give the voucher away to somebody. Just because you obtained it doesn't mean you can't donate it to somebody else. It is perfectly legal to give it away according to a local DTV information broadcast that was given by three local TV stations. I'd agree, but IANAL.

I would have to disagree. IANAL either, but from what I gathered a person is not supposed to be responsible for all operations on and communication to/from their computer unless there is proof that they were the ones who did it. Just because somebody was looking at porn on my computer at work using my name doesn't mean I did it. I could potentially be held responsible for it if there is a policy that states that I am not to allow anybody else to use my credentials, but if there is sufficient evidence to show that it might not have been me then it would be fairly hard to found guilty in a wrongful termination lawsuit.

In this situation I wouldn't really know which way to take it, but I would say that there is enough against the makers to invalidate the EULA. I would say the AV 2009 authors would be more likely to face fraud charges than Microsoft would for removing it.

Technically, the user didn't remove it. Microsoft did. I'm sure MS didn't agree to their EULA.

Taking the typical scam and assuming the scammer is not law enforcement, then there is no entrapment defense. Entrapment cannot be committed by non-law enforcement or non-government officials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entrapment
http://www.grayarea.com/entrap.htm

IANAL,
--
Nathan